Conservative Bloggers Have Complete Meltdown, Fearing Harvard Divested From Israel

Many conservative blogs have been in complete meltdown mode after Globes Online reported that Harvard University had sold off its holdings in Israeli companies. Conservatives, of course, believed that Harvard had caved in to demands of evil Islamic terrorists in its student body (sarcasm).

The most paranoid headline I could find is this deliciously neurotic title from Atlas Shrugs: Harvard Whores for Jihad: Harvard University Fund Sells all Israel holdings. But then again, check out this worried blogger who asks "Et Tu, Harvard?" and blasts the university for preferring "oppressors" (like Saudi Arabia) over Israel.

There is one major problem with the melodramatic conservative meme: it is not true. Harvard has released a statement that responds to the madness. Naturally, Harvard sold its assets for the same reason that most investors do: for financial purposes.

Harvard invested in an emerging market fund that included Israeli assets. Recently, the fund manager categorized Israel as a developed economy, and Harvard rebalanced its holdings by reinvesting those shares in other emerging economies. Harvard, however, still invests in developed economies -- including Israel.

Perpetual Critic Sarah Palin Takes on Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

Sarah Palin believes the Obama Administration was simply wrong to criticize Israel's plans for building new settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Obama Administration's criticism of Israel has sent Palin (and other right wingers) into a rage.

Now that the decorated General Petraeus, however, has emerged as the source of the Obama Administration's criticism, Media Matters wonders how conservatives (who claim to admire Petraeus) will react.  I suspect that Palin believes her "common sense" (which is simply an excuse for not reading) beats years of experience as a commander in the region. According to conservative pollster Rassmussen, however, people support Obama on this issue.

By Conservative Logic: Israel = Nazist Socialist Empire

A motley crew of tea-baggers, birthers, conservatives, and anti-healthcare reform protestors (among others) have made some pretty outlandish claims about President Obama. In particular, they have described Obama's proposals for healthcare reform (and other policies) as "socialism" and Nazism. Although I feel odd paying attention to these silly "arguments," I also believe that taking illogical positions to their patently absurd and illogical conclusions can help illuminate a discussion. So here goes.

The Skinny: Israel = Nazist Socialist Empire
Applying conservative logic regarding healthcare reform would lead one to conclude that Israel is a Nazist socialist empire. Why? Israel has universal healthcare. Everyone is insured by nonprofit plans funded by the government. Insurance is mandatory, but participants have a access to a full range of plans. Progressive income taxes fund the system, and the government pays for care received by patients. The World Health Organization rated Israel's healthcare system 28th in the world in 2000.


Don't Get Too Excited
Last month, an anti-reform protestor yelled "Heil Hitler" at a Jewish man who praised Israel's healthcare system during a Las Vegas town hall meeting. Apparently, illogic (and bigotry) persists even when it is too blatant to deny.


For an analysis of healthcare in Israel, see: Health Systems in Transition: Israel.

On My Reading List - Judicial Power and National Politics: Courts and Gender in the Religious-Secular Conflict in Israel

A growing body of legal and political science scholarship attempts to demonstrate that courts operate in a political and cultural context. In the United States, this work has examined how evolving international and domestic politics have influenced judicial opinions in the context of civil rights, economic regulation, and other important issues.

This important scholarship places judicial opinions in a broader social context, and it provides a framework for understanding court doctrine as a product of legislative, executive, and social movement activity. For that reason, I am excited to find the following recent publication: Judicial Power and National Politics: Courts and Gender in the Religious-Secular Conflict in Israel.

Synopsis
Patricia J. Woods examines a controversial issue in the politics of many countries around the world: the increasing role that courts and justices have played in deeply charged political battles. Through an extensive case study of the religious-secular conflict in Israel, she argues that the most important determining factor explaining when, why, and how national courts enter into the world of divisive politics is found in the intellectual or judicial communities with whom justices live, work, and think about the law on a daily basis. The interaction among members of this community, Woods maintains, is an organic, sociological process of intellectual exchange that over time culminates in new legal norms that may, through court cases, become binding legal principles. Given the right conditions--electoral democracy, basic judicial independence, and some institutional constraints--courts may use these new legal norms as the basis for a jurisprudence that justifies hearing controversial cases and allows for creative answers to major issues of national political contention.

Advanced Praise
"This well-written book makes an important contribution by pushing the analysis of the controversies surrounding judicial intervention/activism to take ideas seriously. It provides a very persuasive account of Israel's High Court of Justice's involvement in religious issues and the key role of the judicial community in precipitating that involvement. At the same time, Woods attends to the roles of institutional factors and social movements in facilitating the controversial rights actions/decisions of the HCJ. This book is a must read for scholars of law and politics."

-- Austin Sarat, Amherst College

"The author's notion of an extended judicial community of judges, academic lawyers, and cause lawyers is a major move forward in the `new institutionalism' in the study of law and courts."

-- Martin Shapiro, Boalt Law School, University of California at Berkeley

Osama Bin Laden: Political Pundit

Osama Bin Laden released a new recording today. The tape starts with a requisite call for a Jihad against Israel for its aggression in Gaza. But terrorist-in-hiding then offers political commentary concerning the economic crisis and the changing political climate in the United States. He suggests that the nation's economic problems will impede its ability to exert power on the international stage and conduct "guerrilla wars":

Now America is begging the world for money . . . and the USA will not be as powerful as it used to be.

This rapid failing for America was one of the reasons that the Israelis started their attacks against Gaza and just to make use of what's left of the Bush term . . . .

The majority of the U.S. people are happy to get rid of Bush, Bush left for his successor a heavy heritage, the hardest part of heritage is guerrilla wars. . . .

The Bush administration says that the tape shows Bin Laden is desperate to remain relevant. Well, I guess the president knows something about that battle.